linux-kernel - Re: [patch 2/9] Conditional Calls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070601193558.GH7217@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jun 2007 21:35:58 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/9] Conditional Calls - Hash Table

> Yes, but as you have probably understood, I want to have everything
> embedded at the cond_call() site rather than polluting the rest of the
> code with declarations.

A cond call is essentially a fancy variable. And the Linux kernel
is written in C and in C you declare variables before you use them.
Also it would allow compile time checking against typos and 
allow removing some nasty hash table code. The proposal sounds like a 
clear winner to me. 

> Also, if we have the same cond_calls in different modules, in which
> module shall it be defined ?

In one of them. Like all other variables in C.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/